Calcutta High Court Directs Enquiry Against Complainants For Filing False POCSO Case Against Accused Who Spent Almost A Year Behind Bars

The Calcutta High Court has called upon the POCSO court, Murshidabad to undertake a 'discreet enquiry' into the de-facto complainant and her daughter in a POCSO case for making a false complaint and also recording a false statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., thereby fabricating false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of the IPC.

A division bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray held:

"As a result of such an act, three innocent persons being the petitioners herein, have spent almost one year behind the bar, and this fact, therefore, should also be taken into account by the Learned Judge. After enquiry, if the Learned Judge, Special POCSO Court, Berhampore, Murshidabad, finds that the defacto-complainant and/or her daughter (if major) are responsible for fabrication of false evidence under Section 192 of Indian Penal Code, 1860...he shall initiate criminal proceedings against them."

Background

The accused were charged with rape of the alleged minor daughter of the defacto-complainant and were arrested under Sections 341/376D of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 4/6 of the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act (POSCO Act, 2012).

They were languishing in judicial custody for almost one year. During the hearing of the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, the defacto complainant, the mother of the victim girl, submitted through her counsel that she lodged a complaint against the petitioners on false allegations of rape upon her daughter and at the time of recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and her daughter falsely implicated the petitioners under political pressure.

In an earlier hearing, after taking into consideration the contention of the defacto complainant made through her counsel, the court found that the issue regarding the false implication of the petitioners under political pressure was very serious and while granting bail to the petitioners, the court issued suo motu Rule calling upon the alleged minor daughter and the defacto-complainant to show cause as to why necessary legal proceedings shall not be initiated against them for having made a false complaint and also having recorded false statements on oath before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 

The complainant filed her response to the Rule and tendered an unconditional apology for whatever was done by her and her minor daughter. She specifically stated that she was compelled to make and pursue the false complaint due to tremendous pressure of the local political leaders. She has further stated that her husband is an ailing person who fell from an under-construction building while working as a mason and he is bedridden with a broken spinal cord since 2017.

She stated that they have very limited sources of income and they have to depend largely on different grants sponsored by the State Government under various social schemes. Moreover, as her husband is bedridden she and the victim girl are heavily dependent upon the neighbours and local politically connected persons to maintain their livelihood and the regular medical cost of her ailing husband. 

Court's observations

Upon noting the submissions of the de-facto complainant, the court noted that "the protective umbrella created for the protection of child victims under POCSO Act, 2012 is being misused by people like the defacto complainant and the victim. The seriousness of the issue will be further unfolded if we peruse the bail application filed by the three petitioners in connection with CRR No. 2431 of 2024 wherein the said petitioners alleged that the victim is not a minor and she is a married lady and she had contracted at least two marriages. She got divorced by her said two husbands. In this regard, they have submitted two talaknamas showing dissolution of marriages of the victim at the instance of her two husbands on 06.09.2022 and 03.03.2023 respectively."

"Therefore, the above factual aspect prima facie shows that Berhampore Police Station Case No. 1114 of 2023 dated 09.08.2023 was thus initiated on the basis of false allegations and further there is a genuine doubt regarding the minority of the alleged victim," it added.

It was further stated that while it is true that minor victims have been protected by Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 even if they make false allegations, if a victim misleads the authority regarding her age and persuades the authority to take legal action against an innocent person by claiming that she is a minor, the benefit of the provisions as envisaged under Section 22(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 would not be available to such victims.

"Can one's poverty be a good ground for making false allegations against an innocent person?" the Court asked while referring to the complainant's usage of the article on “A Tea Selller And A Judge” by Apoorva Mandhani published in LiveLaw on 13.11.2018 wherein a minor tea seller who used to hawk in trains and railway stations was booked under the relevant provisions of Indian Railway Act, 1989 and the concerned Magistrate acquitted the said young person who was compelled to violate the provisions of Indian Railway Act, 1989 due to his abject poverty.

"Such a case cannot be equated with the present case since no innocent person was booked under criminal laws on the basis of activities of the young tea seller. He violated the provisions of law due to his poverty. But, we must reiterate that poverty cannot be a ground for lodging false complaints against innocent persons," the Court stated.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Magistrate to undertake an enquiry and file a criminal complaint against the complainant if they were found guilty of fabricating evidence under Section 192 of the IPC.

Case: Court On Its Own Motion Vs. XXXX(Victim Girl) & Anr

Case No: CRR/2431/2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 215

Click here to read order